January 2, 2007

Where is the guy brave enough, strong enough, admirable enough to take her as his wife, to suffer the slings and arrows of her outrageous fortune -- to say to the world (for it would be the entire world) that he loves this woman who will always be an asterisk in American history. I hope there is such a guy out there. It would be nice. It would be fair.

It would be nice, too, and fair, also, if Lewinsky were treated by the media as it would treat a man. What's astounding is the level of sexism applied to her, as if the wave of the women's movement broke over a new generation of journalists and not a drop fell on any of them.

Ack. Something about that last image.... making me think of a blue dress....

Of course, it's true, though. Lewinsky was portrayed in a sexist way. The need to rescue Clinton from impeachment made everyone forget how to take a feminist perspective. But Cohen's dreamy wish for a man to love Lewinsky isn't the least sexist thing I've ever read. I'm guessing Monica has all the boyfriends she wants. I'll bet they have lots of laughs sharing intimate gossip about the old man who transgressed to be with her. Why assume she wants to marry or marriage is some special solace that she needs? Why say her life is ebbing?

61 comments:

I'm most struck by this line, "I will not name names. But in recent days, Lewinsky has been back in the news".

The name he's not naming is Libby Coleman, who wrote this silly article about Ms. Lewinsky last week.

Why not call out his colleague by name?

Seems passive/aggressive not to.

Plus there should be a link to the original article that caused him to write his response, it's very unbloggerly not to.

First, if he was a blogger, he would have responded the same day, even if it was Christmas Eve, second, he would have addressed specific issues with the original article rather than write his own take off on it without directly referencing it. Thirdly and more importantly, he would have linked the article in the first place so that his readers could judge for themselves rather than forcing them to trust his opinion of the article.

Washington Post should have had the sense to include a link at both articles to both articles to increase traffic, but obviously their web editors don't yet think like people who are natives to this wondrous new world on the web. Rather they treat it like a dirty, dank colonial outpost where they're stuck until they can get a 'real' job in the print division.

She was never portrayed as a young lady, not very attractive, not too mature, who was seduced by an extremely powerful, charismatic older man, while she worked for him for free. She's never portrayed as a young woman cynically used for sexual gratification before being tossed aside and vilified, simultaneously, as a fat dope and an evil alluring seductress. The lesson of the Lewinsky scandal:

Feminism sucks. At best, feminists care about women the way communists care about humanity, strictly in the abstract. At worst, feminism is just a big stupid ugly con. Either way it sucks.

Then again, it is hard to blame the feminists for sacrificing her when Lewinsky's own father seemed ready to pimp her out. Considering what she's been through I'd say Lewinsky has shown incredibly toughness and wisdom. The best revenge is a good life, and I hope she'll have one.

"Why say her life is ebbing?" Good point, especially given that her age is 33. Can you imagine a 33-year-old man's life being described that way (unless he is an NFL runningback)?

On another note, it's not all that unusual for a smart, dignified woman in her early 30s to have trouble on the dating market, especially one who tends to carry some extra pounds. The baggage of national scandal can't be helping though.

He omitted that her last name is used now where B.J. used to suffice. I don't think journalists reining themselves in will take "a Lewinsky" from the lexicon of randy teenagers. Perhaps he's lamenting the tick of her biological clock. Perhaps her mother put him up to writing this article. Perhaps she doesn't want to be married.

asx: I signed the law professors' letter saying Clinton should not be impeached. I continue to think that.

Do you think he should've resigned?

And by opposing impeachment, do you mean you opposed having an impeachment trial at all, or that you opposed removing him from office?

Committing what would be a felony if he had been convicted in a criminal court seems to call for an impeachment trial IMHO. I thoight he should've just resigned from office and spared us all.

As far as Lewinsky, I feel sorry for someone who has to be defined by something sleazy like that for the rest of her life. But I doubt she has trouble finding men who wanna date her. I'm just glad there was that blue dress so the Clintonoid henchmen called off the effort to completely destroy her with lies about her being a mentally-ill "stalker" of the president.

I thought he did commit a crime and that there was a ground to impeach him, but that there was discretion not to impeach and that he shouldn't have been impeached. But after he was impeached, I wanted him to resign. (Gore would have become President.) I refused to sign the letter that said he shouldn't have been convicted.

He committed sexual harrassment, a crime that he signed into law himself, and the lied about it, trying to dodge on the meaning of a two letter word. He deserved to be impeached. Whether it was strategically wise for the republicans to do this is another thing altogether (blocking him politically and building Republican advantage should have been the preoccupation of the Repubs, rather than on "getting" Clinton: the Left has the same problems wrt Bush).

33 is getting very old for reproduction, as more and more research shows. There's lots to life outside of that, but if you want to have kids as a woman, getting married soon is the absolute best idea for yourself and your prospective offspring. Great kids come out of the most screwed up environments, and screwed up kids come out of the best environments, but if one's going to bet, go with the married Mother and Father, rather than some sort of innovative or boundary breaking path.

Her most important contribution isn't her activities under a desk, but rather an exceptionally lax approach to drycleaning. As to why she is still single... her notoriety compunds the drawbacks of her size.

Lewinsky just graduated from the London School of Economics. Doesn't mean anything neccesarily, but I'm curious about your Masters Degree, your age, and your weight. Why not post a pic of yourself, where we can all be the judge? Otherwise we don't really have any standards to go by.

Probably I'm just countersuggestible, and would say the opposite if most people were saying the opposite; but Monica was not just a victim of Bill Clinton. Yes, unequal power and all that, but she was of age, and I believe "presidential kneepads" was her coinage, and I believe she was smitten and conned by the man, but also that she may have seen it as a sort of career move. People long to get into the spotlight, and/or into the attention of the famous, and they don't realize ahead of time that it may ruin their lives. (But I don't think her life is ruined, either.)

Harkonnendog: Why is the lesson here "feminism sucks"? What does anything here have to do with feminism? Obviously, there is still sexism in the United States, even by the ever-so-enlightened Ann Althouse. In the March post about the Oscars (one of her favorite 12 of the year), she wrote, "Rachel Weisz wins. She's wearing a black dress, which nicely supports big, swelling breasts, and she's got tastefully dangly diamond earrings. She says nothing notable." Dismissing what a woman says while gushing about her giant breasts? Not exactly a progressive stance. But just because feminists haven't been able to eradicate every trace of sexism from the world, that doesn't mean that feminists don't care about women (a bizarre assertion anyway, since most feminists are women). The idea of a feminist raving about women's rights then turning around and denouncing Lewinsky as an ugly slut is a nice fantasy, but you'll need to find an actual example for it to be even remotely believable.

Anyway, what makes you think that Lewinsky was "seduced" or "used"? Women can make decisions about sex that have nothing to do with the expectation of a proposal. For instance, given the chance, I would be all over George Bush (even without the expectation of lifelong partnership!!) even if it turned my last name into a synonym for BJ or SWAP.avi or whatever. Imagine: this pillar of godly morality an adulterer and an enormous pervert! I can't think of anything better, really.

hdhouse:i'm just wondering about the right wing's penchant for assigning the worst characteristics to everyone they 1. don't know and 2. don't like.

If Libby Copeland is "right wing," I'll eat my hat. (It's wool and will take a fair amount of chewing, but it would be doable.)

I behaved like an idiot when I was 20, but fortunately all the major players have drifted apart and no one else really cares. It's practically like it never happened. Lewinsky doesn't have the anonymous luxury that most of us enjoy, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of people still don't care. I can't imagine trying to explain her role in American history to her children, though.

hdhouse:i'm just wondering about the right wing's penchant for assigning the worst characteristics to everyone they 1. don't know and 2. don't like.

If Libby Copeland is "right wing," I'll eat my hat. (It's wool and will take a fair amount of chewing, but it would be doable.)

I behaved like an idiot when I was 20, but fortunately all the major players have drifted apart and no one else really cares. It's practically like it never happened. Lewinsky doesn't have the anonymous luxury that most of us enjoy, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of people still don't care. I can't imagine trying to explain her role in American history to her children, though.

Much to her credit, she's gotten on with her life and not merely fallen to the usual methods of self-destruction. But for some acts, there is no forgiveness. And some people will remain a caricature forever.

Cohen's point would have been good except he missed the opportunity to forgive her, and avoid caricature himself. It's a badly-written thought he's projected onto her, disguising it as concern: "She's probably smart but geez, can you imagine any guy marrying her?

Monica really only needs two things: a sense of humor, and a guy with a sense of humor. Who likes zaftig women.

Is that such a tall order?

(The few times I watched the Jerry Springer-type shows, I was enlightened as to how many guys out there are killing each other over really zaftig women. Okay, they were blue-collar guys. The cutoff of female acceptability at 120 pounds and 35 years, or simulacrum thereof, is confined to the élite. Monica should, er, broaden her search a little.)

Cohen: "Where, pray tell, is the man who is remembered just for sex? Where is the guy who is the constant joke for something he did in his sexually wanton youth? Maybe here and there some preacher, but in those cases the real subject matter is not sex but hypocrisy. Other than those, no names come to mind."

This is very irritating. "Her life is ebbing"???? Maybe she doesn't want to get married. Maybe she's got daddy issues and all her relationship are with married men, in which case why is it unfair that she's not married?

"Imagine: this pillar of godly morality an adulterer and an enormous pervert! I can't think of anything better, really."

You wish, Susan Brindle. Screw equality for women, you just need to "get" George W. Bush. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, must be protected at all costs. Does that about sum up your ideal of the feminist movement?

Pardon me for not being a humorless prig but I thought Copeland's original article was about how people consistently confound our expectations. The woman in question is an actual human being, and is therefore assuredly quite a bit more interesting and vital than, say, Cohen's little sermon.

Seems like Ms. Lewinsky is doing just fine, puritans and politicos notwithstanding.

The way that feminism did not support her was that the first thing feminists did was gush about how they would do the same thing to Bubba. These are the same feminists who would draw and quarter a boss who had sex with a young worker, particularly an intern and not only get him fired but have him brought up in court on harassment charges even in the young worker was the one who initiated the sex. Talk about hypocrisy!!

Copeland's article shows quite a lot of arrogance. Why is it a surprise that Monica can earn a master's at LSE? Did Copeland somehow know previously that Monica was not well-endowed in the IQ department?

And in all her examples of "dumb-smart" people, she left out the most obvious one in the room--old Bill.

yeah so she went to LSE... it wasn't for economics, dear. As to me.. 7% body fat and an Harvard MBA.. but any idiot can get a grad degree, just as any idiot can get a law degree.

sure you can, maybe, have twins at 67, setting a world record and undergoing dramatic, heroic intervention to do so. Using the natural way, and based on likelihoods, rather than certainties, one should be starting to have kids at least by 35. This isn't the realm for idiotic tu quoques or other asinine logical fallacies. Women's fertility is constrained in a way that men's isn't, and the ability to have a normal, healthy child is even more constrained. Don't blame me, blame God or Darwin. If you want to deny reality, go right ahead, but that won't change facts.

tcd: Explain how my last comment undermines equality for women. (Especially since my fantasy would be about twelve hundred times more fulfilling if I were a man. Conference calls to Ted Haggard, indeed.) The fact that you seem to think that oral sex makes me somehow less equal really speaks about your own view of women more than anything else.

If George Bush ever slips up by cheating on his wife, the problem won't be in the cheating. It will be in his huge hypocrisy, considering his past holier-than-thou attitude on sex and morality. I'm not as familiar with Clinton's opinions on the subject, but I don't think that is as much of an issue here.

Susan, I'm talking about the way the story is presented. Lewinsky was portrayed as a vixen rather than a victim, by feminists, because Clinton was a democrat.

"But just because feminists haven't been able to eradicate every trace of sexism from the world, that doesn't mean that feminists don't care about women (a bizarre assertion anyway, since most feminists are women)."

You make a bizarre assertion and then call it a bizarre assertion... What a bizarre thing to do.

"Anyway, what makes you think that Lewinsky was "seduced" or "used"?" I don't know if she was seduced or used or not, but I know the public narrative precludes the possibility, which is ridiculous.

"Women can make decisions about sex that have nothing to do with the expectation of a proposal." I'm aware of this, having taken advantage of the fact quite a few times. In fact, I am a master of the obvious. Water is wet, etc.

"For instance, given the chance, I would be all over George Bush (even without the expectation of lifelong partnership!!) even if it turned my last name into a synonym for BJ or SWAP.avi or whatever. Imagine: this pillar of godly morality an adulterer and an enormous pervert! I can't think of anything better, really." Wow... Really? Having sex with you would make him an enormous pervert? And you'd have sex with someone you despise in order to hurt his reputation? roflmao!

Susan,It's bad enough that feminists (like you) threw Monica under the bus in order to protect the man who used his position of power to take advantage of said subordinate. Now, you're having wet dreams about compromising George Bush's reputation. Why? How is wishing ill fate for George Bush advance feminism? Looks like naked politics now as then.

What burns me up when I think of Clinton and the Lewinsky affair is not what they were doing in the Oval Office (revolting though that behavior is, given that he was her boss, he President, and a much older more worldly guy). It is the methodical sliming of Lewinsky as a sort of stalker that the White House did when it broke -- much as Clinton slimed lots of other women. Now, that's not criminal. But, ugh -- what a disgusting man. And that really ought to have been pointed out by Cohen too: it's not entirely that the press has portrayed Lewinsky as a loose, unserious woman: the White House beat them to it.

Susan Brindle said: "If George Bush ever slips up by cheating on his wife, the problem won't be in the cheating. It will be in his huge hypocrisy, considering his past holier-than-thou attitude on sex and morality."

When is Bush holier-than-thou about sex and morality? I think he's been the classic Christian we're-all-sinners type. When has he ever acted as if his personal morality was higher than other people's? The closest thing I can think of are statements about how in general the American people have good values, or plainly stating that he believes in Jesus. When does he say he's better than other people? That doesn't ring a bell at all.

Harkonnendog, I am well aware of what you were arguing. I asked you for examples, because, to me, this argument about the sexist feminist only sounds like a traditionalist fantasy. And I want lots of quotes from many different people that have clearly identified themselves as "feminist" before the quote was spoken. You're using this as an excuse to dismiss feminism altogether, so you had better find across-the-board support for this position of yours. Find one person and, hey, I'd be impressed, but it doesn't give you an excuse to write things like "feminists hate humanity" or whatever.

"You make a bizarre assertion..."

How completely stupid of me to reason that, because feminism is all about women's rights, most feminists are women. I am sure that there are men that identify as feminists; however, it is likely that they are a minority. Since you call this assertion bizarre, I can only assume that you think that the majority of feminists are men--because clearly, men know so much more about what women really need than women do. Want to advance women's rights? Then stop patronizing them, kthxs.

"Having sex with you would make him an enormous pervert?"

Had you had bothered to look up SWAP.avi you'd know what the "pervert" was in reference to.

dick: I would like to see an example of one of these unsupportive, hypocritical feminists. Also, please show me a situation where a boss was fired from his job and brought to court over a completely consensual relationship with one of his employees.

tcd: How, exactly, did I throw Monica under the bus? I was only skeptical that she was "seduced" and "used"--since apparently it isn't at all possible that she was a willing partner and maybe even enjoyed it in some way or another. I don't understand why it is more feminist to suppose that Lewinsky suffered through sex with Clinton because she thought that afterwards they would settle down together to have a private, quiet life or whatever it is you people are thinking.

"How is wishing ill fate for George Bush advance feminism?"

Um, I never said it did. Am I only restricted to doing things that advance feminism now?

Althouse: "Holier-than-thou" probably wasn't the best term for it, but Bush does portray himself as extremely religious, which is where the contradiction would lie. The emphasis of my fantasy is really on the reaction of his gushing fans. Bush is all things to all fundies, and it would be absolutely thrilling to watch them rationalize his behavior (that "we're-all-sinners" thing does sound like the start to a great excuse). Or, you know, they could give up supporting him, but I wouldn't want to push reality too hard.

Susan: The sexual harassment problem with Clinton doesn't depend on whether the relationship with Lewinsky was consensual. I think most people assume she was into it and even that she actively sought him out. The problem has more to do with the other women and how he dealt with the sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones. Clinton lied under oath about Lewinsky because he was trying to avoid liability in Jones's case (if I remember correctly). Feminists -- many of them -- diminished Jones. Also, Lewinsky got special treatment because of her sexual liaison with Clinton. Those who didn't have sex with him were comparatively disadvantaged.

tomhorne said... Thank God that Clinton did not get impeached or resign, Al Gore would still be President!!

If Gore had taken over after a Clinton resignation, he may well have won the 2000 election. Then 9/11 would've hit (there's no reason to think 9/11 would've been stopped at that point, as the sleeper cell was already carrying out its plot by then) and the entire rise of al Qaeda up to and including 9/11 would have been done entirely on the watch of Clinton/Gore rather than being able to be spread over administrations from both parties.

Thus, not only would Gore not be president today, we may never have had another Democrat president again. Democrats should feel extremely fortunate Bush won in 2000. Instead, Democrats entertain the incredible fantasy that Gore's first order of business would've been to drastically re-organize all the intelligence agencies and airport security and stopped 9/11.

Susan: "Holier-than-thou" probably wasn't the best term for it, but Bush does portray himself as extremely religious, which is where the contradiction would lie.

I realize over time memories start fading about the 1990s. Bill Clinton went on quite a bit about being a Southern Baptist and even lectured women on welfare about the morality of their lifestyles. This was a man who said he was against sexual harassment and signed laws about it at the very time he was committing sexual harassment in his own office. He said he was a feminist at the very moment he had a "bimbo eruptions" office in order to destroy women as "nuts and sluts". He was a man who went on about sex on television (V chips, etc) only to wind up using the highest office to glamorize using an intern's mouths for his own pleasure while apparently not even getting her off in return.

You don't accuse him of hypocracy. Instead you tell us how hypocritical Bush would be if he cheated on his wife.

You should be scolding Clinton for being a hypocrite and praising Bush for not being one. :)

Hello loafingolf,Must disagree. After 2 years as President Gore would certainly have won the 2000 election, remember he did win the popular vote. 9/11 would have happened. The country and main stream media (MSM)would have rallied round Gore. Gore would have made a BUNCH of rocks bounce in Afghanistan, maybe several times, chasing Osama. Gore, the dims and the MSM would have touted this as a POWERFUL RESPONSE and the public would have bought it. Gore would have given some ROUGH speaches at the UN. The dims and the MSM would have touted that as a POWERFUL RESPONSE and the public would have bought it. We would have squeeked through 2004 without an attack here at home and Gore would have been elected again. Saddam would still be with us, only now free to pursue his aims as the UN sanctions would have been removed. Even worse, we would have two more years of that Dork to look forward to. Thank God for Clinton's self-centerdness and hutspa.

Am I the only one who thinks that if Ms. Lewinsky was a WASP, that either, Mr. Cohen wouldn't have wasted his valuable time (don't laugh!! Dick's time is valuable) writing about one of Bill's pieces of meat or the piece would have been less than sympathetic.

Two quick memories of Mr Cohen's columns.

He wrote about how when he was watching Court TV of the William Kennedy rape trial that when he saw the underwear that the alledged victim was wearing he came to the conclusion then that she wasn't raped. She was wearing black, lacy underwear, afterall!!!

The other one is that he dismissed the idea that someone as sophisticated* as bill clinton would expose himself to Paula Jones. Of course a few years later and now president he's poking an intern with a cigar and ejaculating on her in the oval office. I wonder if Richard Cohen still thought that Bill wasn't capable of doing something like that in hindsight. The sad thing is I doubt it.

It isn't necessarily "feminist" to portray women purely as victims, or antifeminist to grant Monica some will and discretion in the whole matter (unlike women that Clinton may have groped or quid-pro-quo'd without their consent).

That doesn't relieve Clinton of responsibility or blame for his own juvenile and exploitive behavior, which would have been inexcusable in any boss twice the age of his underling, but was particularly unfitting of the President of the United States.

Amba, I agree with this: "It isn't necessarily "feminist" to portray women purely as victims, or antifeminist to grant Monica some will and discretion in the whole matter (unlike women that Clinton may have groped or quid-pro-quo'd without their consent)." My complaint was that, rather than get a mix of both stories, we ONLY got the vixen story, at least from the left.

Susan, I can't even discuss this with you because you don't read what you yourself have written. None of this: "How completely stupid of me to reason that, because feminism is all about women's rights, most feminists are women. I am sure that there are men that identify as feminists; however, it is likely that they are a minority. Since you call this assertion bizarre, I can only assume that you think that the majority of feminists are men--because clearly, men know so much more about what women really need than women do. Want to advance women's rights? Then stop patronizing them, kthxs." applies. Kthanks!

Harkonnendog: Yes, because that was my entire argument--I didn't ask you very nicely to back up your ridiculous assertions with actual evidence or anything. My only regret is that I didn't answer your brilliant one-sentence argument to your satisfaction.

Although..."none of this applies"? Nice to know that you really don't care about advancing women's rights. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

LoafingOaf: I admit that I'm not very familiar with Clinton, but it doesn't really surprise me that he would emphasize his religion. Since most people equate atheism with immorality, it would be extremely unwise for any politician to not appear very religious. However, I doubt that Clinton acted religious to the extent that Bush does. So, no, it isn't really the same thing. But even assuming that Clinton really is as slimy as you say he is, why is it necessary for me to crusade against every single hypocrite that might be tangentially related to my argument before I can fantasize a little? I would be absolutely delighted if Bush were exposed as a hypocrite, but this doesn't mean that I think there are no other hypocrites in the world.

"You should be scolding Clinton for being a hypocrite and praising Bush for not being one. :)"

Oh yes. Thank you Bush for not cheating on your wife! You trample on civil liberties, start unnecessary wars, but at least you get it right where it really counts. :)

Althouse: My point is more about Lewinsky and feminism than Clinton, and I didn't even mention sexual harrassment at all. Most people might "assume she was into it", but many of your commenters clearly don't, and I am replying to them. Thanks for attempting to make my comments completely irrelevant though; you're very sweet, or something.

Harkonnendog: Clearly I should be ashamed of my sloppiness. Your comments are so much better than mine, what with the way you pick out the smallest, least important point and reply to it with one barely comprehensible sentence!!

You're really the last person that should be handing out advice on this subject.